[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

Esther Baker’s crowdsourcing page has been taken down after Simpson Millar solicitors (whose name was placed on the page without their authorisation) asked for their name to be removed. These days, crowdsourcing is everywhere. Whether it is for a new type of watch, a security camera with a battery that lasts a year or a revolutionary type of food storage, there is something for everyone. Crowdsourcing has its downsides though, with many campaigns that do not deliver or which even turn out to be fraudulent, such as the Kickstarter for board game, “The Doom that Came to Atlantic City” (archive). Last week Esther Baker, an unsubstantiated rape accuser, began a campaign on Crowdjustice.com. She claims that John Hemming, the man she accused of rape, has defamed her by calling her a liar and is seeking funds to sue for defamation. She is entitled to her day in court. However, Baker’s campaign left out many key facts about the case. If backers knew the whole truth, would they be so keen to contribute?

Esther Baker’s campaign is aimed at raising money from well meaning members of the public who are passionate about achieving justice. However, the campaign (which is down for the time being) was at best misleading and at worst actionable misrepresentation, leaving out key facts about Baker’s mental health, the evidence in the case, its current state and her various changes of lawyer. By asking for this money, Baker is inviting backers to spend their money with her instead of with other good causes, so in this article I set out the truth about the case.

Esther Baker’s campaign as first published opened with the following lines – “My name is Esther Baker, and I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, grooming and domestic violence. I suffer mental health conditions as a result of my abuse including severe depression and PTSD”.

Baker claims she is a victim of childhood sexual abuse and grooming, but it is public knowledge that despite extensive police investigation, no one has been convicted. Therefore, Baker’s claim to be a survivor is unproven. In fact, according to the Independent Inquiry on Child Sexual Abuse, there were as many as 11 police officers involved in the investigation. Witness statements were taken from 30 individuals. Ms Baker alone was interviewed for a total of 91½ hours, with the transcripts of those interviews running to 1,081 pages. No one was convicted. No one was even charged.

More importantly, Esther Baker has given an incomplete account regarding her mental health. Baker’s pleadings are available to the public without the Court’s permission under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 5.4C. In her campaign she refers to “severe depression”, but her Particulars of Claim at 4 (3) she refers to, “depression with psychosis”. Baker has failed to disclose her diagnosis of psychosis to potential donors. This is a serious omission. Psychosis is basically defined as, “a loss of contact with reality” – readers may find this article in Medical News Today (archive) helpful. People with psychosis see and hear things (such as voices) that are not there. They may have odd beliefs called delusions. Examples of delusions include Paranoid Delusions as well as Delusions of Grandeur –

• Paranoid delusions – these may cause the person with psychosis to be unduly suspicious of individuals or organizations, believing them to be plotting to cause them harm.
• Delusions of grandeur – clearly false but strongly held belief in having a special power or authority – for instance, they may believe that they are a world leader.

Esther Baker says that she believes that a group including members of the British Parliament, Judges and Lords (as well as members of the obscure church she attended as a child and her father) repeatedly abused her. Repeated investigations at vast public expense have failed to substantiate her claims. Baker now believes she has a special responsibility to reveal the “truth” as she says in this tweet (archive).

At the very least, donors are likely to feel entitled to consider the possibility that Baker’s extraordinary story might arise from her mental health condition.

Another questionable statement Baker has made is the following – “I have personally funded this action for the various initial stages. It has been a long and expensive process thus far”. Baker’s letter of claim was sent in December 2017. She wrote it in person without benefit of a lawyer and emailed it to Hemming. Lantern Project charity CEO Graham Wilmer’s name is in the metadata. Baker then failed to progress her claim until she re-wrote an amended letter of claim in August 2018 (also in person), and brought the claim at court in September. Baker also drafted the pleadings herself and issued them. Her only expenses were a few hundred pounds for the issue fee, printing, travel and similar. The longest delay was due to … Esther Baker waiting nine months between her letter of claim and bringing proceedings. However, Baker did incur one extra large expense – the costs order made against her at the first hearing.

Next Baker said this, “Mr Hemming has […] even attempted to have me sectioned on Christmas Eve”. Hemming did not write the letter Baker refers to (and which she has posted on Twitter). Furthermore, the author of the letter’s concerns are not unreasonable. They warned she was at risk of bankruptcy by being subject of a costs order. Now, after the letter was written, Baker has indeed made subject of a costs order she says she cannot pay. The person who wrote the letter was right. I can also confirm that they were not paid to do so by Hemming, nor asked to do so and would not have refrained had Hemming asked them to. Furthermore a casual reading of the letter shows it refers to Hemming in the third person.

The begging screed went on – “People like me have been silenced with threats and litigation for too long”.

In fact, Baker told her (regularly changing) story with saturation coverage in the national media and John Hemming made no attempt to sue her. Baker told her story in the Mirror, on Sky News, on Channel 4 and at IICSA. Hemming did not start proceedings against her but instead he took action against some of those who had promoted her story. The person doing the attempted silencing in this case is … Esther Baker. Baker argues that despite her having made unsubstantiated allegations of rape for three years it is an injustice that Hemming responded!

Another concern about the crowdfunding campaign was that it was scheduled to end after the last of Baker’s pleadings were due so … how could the money go to those pleadings?

On 15th April 2019 Baker actually finally got to have her ‘case’ heard in the High Court, despite her best efforts to have the hearing vacated. When Hemming was served with her claim he filed a defence of Truth calling Baker a liar as well as a counterclaim. Hemming asked Baker to plead details of the alleged rape and she refused whereupon he applied to strike out her case. A few days before the strike out hearing on 11 April 2019 Baker asked for an adjournment and for the date to be vacated claiming she had pro-bono (that is, free) legal advice. The hearing went ahead. At the hearing on 15 April 2019, Baker told the judge that she had pro-bono advice and representation going forward –

Unfortunately, that was not quite the case. Baker was asked by the judge to provide an email from the lawyers. The court then rose. After lunch, Baker’s story on representation had changed. Tamsin Allen was not in fact providing free representation, only providing advice and some help with pleadings (along with barrister Kirsten Sjøvoll from Matrix Chambers). Instead, Baker intended to instruct Simpson Millar –

Simpson Millar were apparently considering assisting Ms Baker pro-bono. In fact, lawyer Peter Garsden said this (which Baker forwarded to Hemming and the judge, waiving privilege) –

Of course, some lawyers had already reached conclusions. Earlier in the hearing it was put to the judge that no legal advice could possibly help Baker with her pleas on the issue of meaning in the counterclaim. The judge said this –

After seeing the emails, the judge agreed to give Baker a further chance. However, she was ordered to redraft all her pleadings as well as pay Hemming’s costs of the hearing and responding. That will amount to £12,252.44. Baker had a chance to object under a process called detailed costs assessment but missed the deadline and took no action when Hemming pointed it out to her, so a default costs certificate has been applied for.

After the hearing, Baker did indeed file and serve revised Particulars of her Claim on 13 May 2019. The Particulars had been drafted by barrister Kirsten Sjøvoll. However, it appears that Sjøvoll and Allen then ended their pro-bono assistance with the pleadings because Baker then posted a web page on Crowdjustice.com asking for money to pay Simpson Millar to do it –

“My initial target of £7,000 will contribute towards the cost of drafting my reply to the Defence and my defence to the anticipated counter claim”.

It is also clear that Jonathan Price’s “conclusions” did not lead him to decide to represent Baker pro-bono. Of course there are many reasons why lawyers might decide not to decide support Baker’s claim pro-bono and their legal advice is confidential. However it is only fair to cite some of the matters Hemming relies on in his Defence.

Baker had told the national media, including the Daily Mirror and Sky News, that she was abused by a faith-related paedophile ring (she does not seem to like the word, ‘cult’). However, with each public telling the story seemed to change –

• In her letter to Theresa May, published in the Daily Mirror on 13 January 2015 (archive) under the pseudonym, ‘Becky’, Baker claimed that she was abused from the age of 3 or 4. The abuser was allegedly her father, assisted by members of their church.
• Having waived anonymity, in her interview with Sky News on 25 May 2015 (archive) she claimed she was abused from the age of 6 and police officers guarded the abuse group’s meetings.
• In recent submissions to IICSA, referred to in this determination it was 8 to ‘around’ 12.

In fact in January 2015 Baker contacted John Hemming (then an MP) and asked him for assistance. Hemming declined, except for advising her to report the alleged abuse to police – she subsequently accused him of being a member of the abuse group and of raping her as a child decades before. I have seen a copy of her email asking him for help.

Baker has admitted that she told police her purported assailant had two distinguishing features – a curved penis and a large birthmark on the back. Hemming has neither feature. Baker maintains her case even after being served with a photo of Hemming’s back several months ago. Baker has also seen medical records confirming Hemming has another distinguishing feature she did not mention.

Baker has alleged she was raped by a Labour peer. In his Defence and Counterclaim, Hemming says he was told by police and journalists who that peer was. However, the Labour Lord concerned (I will not name him, he is dead and it would cause the family needless distress) had had prostate surgery and was in his 70s in some of the dates Baker claims that she was raped. The nature of prostate surgery at that time usually led to impotence.

None of this, of course, is in Baker’s extremely misleading and incomplete fundraising page. Of particular note are Baker’s repeated claims that she is being stopped from revealing the ‘truth’. In fact, she was made subject of a costs order effectively because she had refused to give details of the alleged rape she said she sought to prove meaning that her pleadings were inadequate.

What is even less clear is who is actually going to be representing her now. In her crowdfunding campaign, Baker named Simpson Millar. However, when asked about the case on Twitter they said as follows (archive) –

It was unclear what this meant so I contacted Simpson Millar. I had several concerns including the ones above. They responded fairly quickly including the following –

“a. We are not acting in the defamation claim.
b. We did not have any input into the contents of the CrowdJustice page, authorise its contents or authorise the use of our name.
c. We do not stand to gain financially at all from the page or the CrowdJustice campaign.
d. We have requested that our name be removed from the CrowdJustice page. We understand that the CrowdJustice Page has been removed from the Internet until an alternative lawyer can be found.”

The page disappeared earlier today and this is why. Baker told her trusting supporters Simpson Millar would be acting if they money was raised but they never authorised that statement nor the use of their name. That raises questions about Baker’s conduct.

Another question is how this relatively novel form of crowdfunding sits in law. Baker has made a number of incomplete, one-sided, misleading and highly tendentious statements in respect of which well-meaning members of the public are invited to part with money on contractual terms.

I wrote to Julia Salasky, CEO with my concerns about the situation on 24 May 2019 and have yet to receive a response. If a company knows there are alleged inaccuracies and fails to respond promptly to complaints (taking into account that the fundraising campaign is only listed for 30 days), what is its legal position? I consider her failure to even acknowledge my email reckless and arrogant. It is unclear whether and how she investigated but of course the page disappeared so some action was taken. However the failure to communicate may have legal or regulatory consequences.

The matter is especially concerning because many of those who have tweeted in support of Baker and said they will donate are themselves vulnerable. In a case like this, with such serious allegations and donors many of whom themselves may be victims the failure of Salasky to reply is a grave concern.

It is clear that there are a lot of decent people out there willing to give their time to those who claim to be victims of rape. Bindmans solicitors and Simpson Millar honourably offered their time to Baker for initial pro-bono advice. Simpson Millar said that they would consider full representation. After considering it, they appear to have parted company (at least on the Defamation case). Doubtless their time will be used on other pro-bono cases. If these solicitors have looked at the papers, considered Baker’s story and the Truth and decided not to act for Baker pro-bono, not to donate further, perhaps other good people might consider doing the same.

There are many victims of tragedy in the world and many much more clear-cut victims holding out the bowl and legitimately asking for help. I would ask people considering donating to Baker to reflect on these matters and place their money elsewhere.